So? Refute what I am saying if you believe it is wrong.

Ruckman is a hyperdispensationalist. He teaches different salvation in different time periods, he relegates about half of the NT to the Tribulation period and not to the church.

Ruckman is a hyperdispensationalist. He teaches different salvation in different time periods, he relegates about half of the NT to the Tribulation period and not to the church.

Bro. Ruckman's KJV defense is one of the best. I have read, heard, and watched him preach and debate several times. But he is a hyperdispensationalist. He doesn't believe the gospel of grace was being preached on the day of pentecost (even though it was preached to Abraham!). That and his nasty attitude I just "spue out" like bone and fat in a steak.

Originally Posted by ok.book.guy

Bro. Ruckman's KJV defense is one of the best. I have read, heard, and watched him preach and debate several times.

He also adds his own quirky doctrines to the issue of the KJV defense. Doctrines such as the re-inspiration of the KJV or the KJV translators, and the correction of the Hebrew and Greek (ie. new revelation in the KJV not found in the preserved manuscripts underlying the KJV).

[chette777]

there at no other time is Salvation by faith alone than now. OT Salvation by works plus beleif, kingdom pur works. just read the english in your bible it is clear. Do Like I did get an old unabridged webster's dictionary with complete english word meanings and you can understand some of those old english words so many think are outdated.

if you think a person was looking toward tehcross fromthe OT you are wrong. no one and the Bible says no one knew Jesus the Lord of Glory would be crucified. if they had they would not have allowed it to happen. sorry lots of typology in the old test but no looking to a ulitmate sacrifice of Christ. though Christ did fulfill all those types.

if you want to see hyperdispensationalism look at the writtings and teaching STAM now there is a hyperdispensationalist. Ruckman is just a dispensatinalist. how about you? oh Jerry, dont have no Gap so no dispensation before the recreation of the world in six days.

There was no recreation of the world. Only one creation - and the Bible is pretty clear that God created ALL things within Heaven and earth in those six days. Doesn't leave room for anything else.

The OT didn't look forward to the death of Christ? Genesis 3 tells a different story - so does Psalm 22, Isaiah 53, other passages.

This ends the debate, if you accept the Bible:

Romans 4:1 What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?

2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.

3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.

5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,

7 Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.

8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.

9 Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.

10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.

11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:

12 And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.

13 For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.

14 For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect:

15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.

16 Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,

17 (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.

18 Who against hope believed in hope, that he might become the father of many nations, according to that which was spoken, So shall thy seed be.

19 And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sara's womb:

20 He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God;

21 And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform.

22 And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness.

23 Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him;

24 But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;

25 Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.

Abraham, David, and all OT believers were saved by faith, by grace - not by the works of the Law.

Originally Posted by jerry

He also adds his own quirky doctrines to the issue of the KJV defense. Doctrines such as the re-inspiration of the KJV or the KJV translators, and the correction of the Hebrew and Greek (ie. new revelation in the KJV not found in the preserved manuscripts underlying the KJV).

This is quite true. Whereas the truth lies in the fact that the KJV is the english revelation of God's word and the TR is the greek revelation of God's infallible word.

One must keep from the extreme of Ruckman, one must go closer to it than many TR defenders. Gary Hudson is an example of a very terrific TR defender who does not go far enough. He is not alone. He is representative of many TR defenders. He is upfront with his hearers and comes right out to say there are mistakes in the KJV which should be corrected by the TR.

That is an example (of many) TR defenders who need to step closer to Ruckman's point of view. Ruckman is fearless in this. I take advantage of his courage in the lion's den and apply it to the truth and avoid his false extreme.

That's the reason I don't throw Ruckman out. i.e. I still have room for him in my KJV defenders hall of fame.

He is an extremist, he is a hyper-dispensationalist, he is an advanced revelation man, he is a KJV-corrects-the-TR man. But he is still a marvellous example of courage in his fearless presentation of the truth (when he's not presenting his extremes that is).

I have an excellent couple of his debates on video. One against a TR defender, and one against an NIV man. In both of these nice videos, he never goes off the deep end (not wanting to give his opponents an easy target). And he gives them both a mighty greek grammar lesson. Really takes'em to school. I love those two videos. So, I'm glad I retained Ruckman to this extent (no further though). And I'm certainly not an apologist for Ruckman and I'm not going to misrepresent his extremes nor deny them.

[chette777]

if there was one creation why does the earth appear in vs 1 heaven and earth and then he calls forth light to come upon a earth that is in darkness. darkness denotes something that is not of God. for in him is no darkness at all. the second day of recreation he had to place firmament around our universe to separate the sinful darkness that had engulfed the earth (that was not there since the begining of time when the earth was in the heaven) from a Holy God and his dwelling place you will notice it is the only day God does not say it is good. for anyhting that separates from God is not Good and sin is one thing that separates all men from God, and the believer he is separated by not yielding to God.

so what your saying from the beginning God created something that he would not pronounce as good and separates men from Gods abode. I think not the reason for the darkness on the earth and the firmament being put in place was to put a limit on how far sin could go and not invade the holiness of God. In wisdom he did that.

[chette777]

just because God wont reveal everything to us in the Bible doesn't mean everything he ever did is recorded in the Bible. it is only what God wants us to know for this life and Godliness. there are many things that are not revealed in the Bible. but maybe you believe angels are women with long flowing hair and white wings too? no angel in the Bible is ever diplicted as a woman. But Demonic escorts of evil are discribe as such.

when did God place the Morning stars that sang they were in the Heaven, not heavens that came after Darkness entered into the realm of God. he reveals very little about that but lets you know it was pride that caused it in Lucifers heart. Prideful knowledge of any kind leads men into sin. that is why God reveals that to us. there are many things God does not reveal about the creatures of heaven. no mention of Seraphim and Cheriphim creation in the 6 days of Recreation. if what you feel is true why doesn't God tell us Oh Yeah during th first Second third, foruth, fifth or sixth day He created these beings. that is because they were created before the 6 day recreation.

Originally Posted by chette777

if there was one creation why does the earth appear in vs 1 heaven and earth and then he calls forth light to come upon a earth that is in darkness. darkness denotes something that is not of God. for in him is no darkness at all. the second day of recreation he had to place firmament around our universe to separate the sinful darkness that had engulfed the earth (that was not there since the begining of time when the earth was in the heaven) from a Holy God and his dwelling place you will notice it is the only day God does not say it is good. for anyhting that separates from God is not Good and sin is one thing that separates all men from God, and the believer he is separated by not yielding to God.

so what your saying from the beginning God created something that he would not pronounce as good and separates men from Gods abode. I think not the reason for the darkness on the earth and the firmament being put in place was to put a limit on how far sin could go and not invade the holiness of God. In wisdom he did that.

Wow - nothing like building a doctrine where the Bible doesn't speak. Where are the other verses that talk about an earlier creation? There are none. Therefore the Gap Theory is a doctrine that is completely made up - never wise to build your life on speculation!

God created the light - therefore it makes sense that there was no light until He did so. Later, darkness is used as a symbol for evil - you cannot have a symbol until you have the reality (darkness).

There is nothing "sinful" about the night that God created. Gen 1 says that God called the darkness night and the light He called day. The verse referred to above that "in Him is no darkness at all" is refering to sin, it has nothing to do with day and night. By the way it is at night that we can see the glory of God declared by His awesome creation of the stars and planets!!

Also as to Ruckman, he just uses the Bible to make it say what he wants. Kind of like the Calvanists! Ruckman has been divorced and remarried so he takes the verse that says that a bishop is to be the husband of one wife to mean... one wife at a time! Check out his views on this. He believes that there was a gap between Gen 1:1 & 2 so he reads that into the Bible and uses other references to "prove" his point - such as Gen 1:28 replenish. In the Hebrew this means to fill or fulfill. The KJV translators used the best word in their day that meant this - replenish. Do some research on this and you will find it to be factual.

Ruckman has some good things to say but HE and his biased views get in the way many times. I am not a follwer of his but of Jesus Christ. There are many who follow this man and take his views as gospel, inventing gap theories, condoning divorce and remarriage and inspiring the translation of the KJV (which is God's PRESERVED Word in the english language but the translators were not inspired in the same way the original authors were - contrary to Ruckman).